Scottish Executive

European Funding

Irene Oldfather (Cunninghame South) (Lab): To ask the Scottish Executive what steps it has taken to ensure increased uptake of European structural funds.

Mr Andy Kerr: The Scottish Executive has encouraged the five Programme Management Executives to pursue actively a range of activities to raise awareness of the availability of the funds, including:

  The provision on websites and the circulation to all partner organisations of programme bulletins providing up to date information on funds available and forthcoming application rounds;

  Facilitation of fast-track applications, rolling programmes and additional application rounds where appropriate;

  Delivery of regular application advice surgeries and workshops across the country;

  Engaging with target communities to stimulate applications for community economic development support;

  Analysis of underlying reasons for slow uptake in particular measures or areas, and

  Efforts to promote private sector interest in the funds.

Health

Fiona Hyslop (Lothians) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will provide a full explanation of the circumstances surrounding the removal of the maxiofacial surgery unit from St. John’s Hospital in West Lothian.

Malcolm Chisholm: It is the responsibility of NHS boards and trusts to address issues relating to the provision of services in their areas.

  The maxillofacial surgery service at St John’s Hospital has not been removed.

Justice

Mr Gil Paterson (Central Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive whether there has been any consideration of introducing third party reporting sites for hate crimes and domestic violence.

Mr Jim Wallace: Recommendation 16 of the  Macpherson Report into the Murder of Stephen Lawrence stated: "That all possible steps should be taken by police services at local level in consultation with local government and other agencies and local communities to encourage the reporting of racist incidents and crimes. This should include: the ability to report at locations other than police stations". This recommendation has been accepted by the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and local arrangements are now being developed. These or other facilities could in principle be extended to include other types of crime but that would be a matter for the police, in consultation with the relevant agencies.

Parliamentary Questions

Michael Russell (South of Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive why it took three months and three weeks to provide substantive answers to questions S1W-23860, S1W-23861 and S1W-23862 on the English Quality Teacher Status qualification.

Nicol Stephen: Unfortunately this was due to an administrative error.

Parliamentary Questions

Michael Russell (South of Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive whether it is acceptable to have a period of three months and one week between the issuing of a holding answer and the provision of the substantive answer.

Nicol Stephen: The Scottish Executive aims to provide substantive answers to questions as soon as practicable.

Prison Service

Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive what degree of overcrowding there was in Scottish prisons in total and broken down by prison, also expressed as a percentage of the capacity of prisons, on 31 January, 31 March and 30 June 2002.

Mr Jim Wallace: I have asked Tony Cameron, Chief Executive of the Scottish Prison Service to respond. His response is as follows:

  The available information is in the following tables:

  Position at Friday 1 February 2002

  

 

Available capacity 
  

Total 
  

% of available capacity 
  



South and West 
  
 



Barlinnie 
  

825 
  

1,064 
  

129.0% 
  



Cornton Vale 
  

230 
  

232 
  

100.9% 
  



Dumfries 
  

162 
  

111 
  

68.5% 
  



Greenock 
  

254 
  

313 
  

123.2% 
  



Kilmarnock 
  

548 
  

541 
  

98.7% 
  



Low Moss 
  

375 
  

237 
  

63.2% 
  



Polmont 
  

422 
  

389 
  

92.2% 
  



Shotts 
  

516 
  

513 
  

99.4% 
  



Area Total 
  

3,332 
  

3,400 
  

102.0% 
  



North and East 
  
 



Aberdeen 
  

155 
  

193 
  

124.5% 
  



Castle Huntly 
  

151 
  

132 
  

87.4% 
  



Edinburgh 
  

578 
  

658 
  

113.8% 
  



Glenochil 
  

489 
  

487 
  

99.6% 
  



Glenochil YOI 
  

58 
  

56 
  

96.6% 
  



Inverness 
  

108 
  

129 
  

119.4% 
  



Noranside 
  

121 
  

100 
  

82.6% 
  



Perth 
  

582 
  

527 
  

90.5% 
  



Peterhead 
  

296 
  

293 
  

99.0% 
  



Area Total 
  

2,538 
  

2,575 
  

101.5% 
  



All Scotland Total 
  

5,876 
  

5,976 
  

101.7% 
  



  Position at Friday 29 March 2002

  

 

Available capacity 
  

Total 
  

% of available capacity 
  



South and West 
  
 



Barlinnie 
  

818 
  

1,115 
  

136.3% 
  



Cornton Vale 
  

230 
  

237 
  

103.0% 
  



Dumfries 
  

122 
  

139 
  

113.9% 
  



Greenock 
  

254 
  

317 
  

124.8% 
  



Kilmarnock 
  

548 
  

526 
  

96.0% 
  



Low Moss 
  

345 
  

264 
  

76.5% 
  



Polmont 
  

422 
  

434 
  

102.8% 
  



Shotts 
  

516 
  

518 
  

100.4% 
  



Area Total 
  

3,255 
  

3,550 
  

109.1% 
  



North and East 
  
 



Aberdeen 
  

155 
  

172 
  

111.0% 
  



Castle Huntly 
  

151 
  

127 
  

84.1% 
  



Edinburgh 
  

578 
  

724 
  

125.3% 
  



Glenochil 
  

496 
  

483 
  

97.4% 
  



Glenochil YOI 
  

58 
  

56 
  

96.6% 
  



Inverness 
  

108 
  

135 
  

125.0% 
  



Noranside 
  

121 
  

100 
  

82.6% 
  



Perth 
  

582 
  

567 
  

97.4% 
  



Peterhead 
  

296 
  

287 
  

97.0% 
  



Area Total 
  

2,545 
  

2,651 
  

104.2% 
  



All Scotland Total 
  

5,806 
  

6,201 
  

106.8% 
  



  Position at Friday 28 June 2002

  

 

Available capacity 
  

Total 
  

% of available capacity 
  



South and West 
  
 



Barlinnie 
  

860 
  

1,200 
  

139.5% 
  



Cornton Vale 
  

230 
  

266 
  

115.7% 
  



Dumfries 
  

178 
  

178 
  

100.0% 
  



Greenock 
  

254 
  

353 
  

139.0% 
  



Kilmarnock 
  

548 
  

537 
  

98.0% 
  



Low Moss 
  

318 
  

295 
  

92.8% 
  



Polmont 
  

422 
  

471 
  

111.6% 
  



Shotts 
  

508 
  

498,518 
  

98.0% 
  



Area Total 
  

3,318 
  

3,798 
  

114.5% 
  



North and East 
  
 



Aberdeen 
  

155 
  

210 
  

135.5% 
  



Castle Huntly 
  

156 
  

145 
  

92.9% 
  



Edinburgh 
  

578 
  

793 
  

137.2% 
  



Glenochil 
  

496 
  

497 
  

100.2% 
  



Glenochil YOI 
  

76 
  

73 
  

96.1% 
  



Inverness 
  

108 
  

138 
  

127.8% 
  



Noranside 
  

121 
  

112 
  

92.6% 
  



Perth 
  

582 
  

543 
  

93.3% 
  



Peterhead 
  

296 
  

286 
  

96.6% 
  



Area Total 
  

2,568 
  

2,797 
  

108.9% 
  



All Scotland Total 
  

5,886 
  

6,595 
  

112.0%"

Radioactive Waste

Mr Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD): To ask the Scottish Executive what progress has been made on the consultation paper Managing Radioactive Waste Safely published jointly in September 2001 by Her Majesty’s Government and the devolved administrations for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Allan Wilson: The consultation ended on 12 March and today we are publishing a summary of the 330 responses received by the UK Government and the devolved administrations. We have considered the many comments made on the specific issues on which Managing Radioactive Waste Safely sought views, and the other comments which some recipients offered, and are now outlining the next steps which the UK Government and devolved administrations have agreed will be taken in the policy process.

  We now propose to press ahead with a review of waste management options. The review will seek the views of interested stakeholders, the public and government departments. We will appoint an independent body to oversee the review process which will make recommendations on the option, or combination of options, for managing radioactive waste which achieves long-term protection for people and the environment. We will review all options and revise the timetable to a four rather than five stage process. We, the UK Government and the devolved administrations, will continue to be responsible for taking the ultimate decision on the management option.

  We propose that the new body will be in place by the end of the year. We will advertise widely for the members of this new body and they will be appointed jointly by ministers from the UK Government and the devolved administrations. We will be seeking people who will bring technical expertise and people who will bring a wider perspective of environmental, health, social or ethical issues. We will also want to ensure that its membership is drawn from across the UK. Further details will be announced later. This new body must win public confidence and operate in an open, transparent and inclusive manner. The review process must engage with stakeholders and the public.

  The first step of the review will be to set the framework for debate by establishing broad agreement on the wastes to be considered, the range of management options for each of them, and the criteria against which these options should be assessed. The second step will be to assess each option including commissioning any new research required. The final step will draw up recommendations for ministers to consider.

  The Managing Radioactive Waste Safely consultation was the first stage in our programme. The appointment of the new body will signal the beginning of Stage 2, and the process of assessing options, and it will end when we publish and explain our decision. Stage 3, around 2006, will be a public debate on how the decision should be implemented, including any site selection criteria. Stage 4, around 2007, will be the start of the implementation process including any necessary legislation. In making these changes we have taken account of views received and research undertaken. We believe that this approach will result in a more dynamic and extensive process of public engagement as the review progresses, rather than the series of public consultation exercises originally envisaged. We shall not set rigid timetables and deadlines. But we shall go faster if we can.

  Our priority is to reach the decision which achieves long-term protection of people and the environment, which inspires public confidence, and which is practicable. This approach, coupled with regular reports to the Scottish and UK Parliaments and the Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies, will reach far more people and encourage active involvement in decision making, rather than occasional opportunities to react to consultation papers.

  The waste from our existing nuclear facilities will arise over the next century or so. So we intend, in our assessment of waste management options, to include not only materials currently classified as waste but also to consider the consequences of providing for other materials which may be have to be managed as waste during that period, such as some separated plutonium, and uranium, as well as certain quantities of spent nuclear fuel. The future management options for the UK’s civil plutonium include its possible use as a fuel. However, up to 5% of this stock may be so contaminated that, even though it may also be technically possible to treat and use this amount for fuel, it might prove uneconomic to do so. The Government is currently undertaking a study of the possible options for the future management of UK owned civil stock and will want to consider the results of that exercise before reaching its own conclusions on this issue. More generally, the Government urges the other owners of these materials, on a voluntary basis, to put in hand procedures now which would allow them to identify those materials which may become not economically reusable.

  The review of options will not consider potential radioactive waste sites. Our priority is to assess the management options and decide how to manage the waste. But we need to recognise that the assessment of some options will raise siting issues – including, as some consultees have suggested, whether local communities should have a veto or be encouraged to volunteer, and whether they should be offered incentives. It is important to ensure that we are clear and open when drawing up any criteria which might eventually be needed to identify sites in the option assessment process, and the issues which they raise.

  Over the summer and autumn, we shall publish more detailed proposals. These will include details of the new body and its terms of reference, and more detailed proposals for Stage 2. They will also address pressing issues such as arrangements for managing waste safely in the short term and an announcement on waste substitution. We shall report progress on the other issues covered in the consultation, including decommissioning nuclear sites, the powers of the environment agencies, managing spent sealed sources of radioactivity, and waste classification. We will also set out how the policy process relates to other programmes, particularly the UK Government's proposals for Managing the Nuclear Legacy – a Strategy for Action published on 4 July 2002. A summary of the consultation responses has today been placed in the Parliament’s Reference Centre (Bib. number 22822) and in the libraries of Westminster and the other devolved administrations. Copies of individual responses are available in the Scottish Executive Library and in those of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the relevant departments in the devolved administrations.

Radioactive Waste

Mr Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD): To ask the Scottish Executive when the UK strategy for radioactive discharges will be published.

Allan Wilson: The strategy was published on 23 July 2002 by the Scottish Executive, UK Government and the devolved administrations for Wales and Northern Ireland and is available on the Scottish Executive website:

  www.scotland.gov.uk/publications.

  The strategy demonstrates how the UK will achieve substantial reductions in radioactive discharges to the marine environment in the period up to 2020, in order to implement agreements reached at the 1998 Ministerial meeting and subsequent meetings of the OSPAR Commission.

Scottish Executive Staff

Jackie Baillie (Dumbarton) (Lab): To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has a stated policy on equal pay.

Jackie Baillie (Dumbarton) (Lab): To ask the Scottish Executive how it has communicated its equal pay policy to employees and recognised trade unions.

Mr Andy Kerr: The Scottish Executive’s policy on equal pay is currently covered by its general policy on equal opportunities which provides that staff should be treated equally in respect of all matters. This policy is set out in the Staff Handbook which is available to staff and recognised Trade Unions. In addition, a review of the Scottish Executive’s pay system will be undertaken in the autumn with a view to identifying whether there are any gender pay gaps or other inequalities. Following the review, which is expected to be completed by April 2003, the Scottish Executive will publish a specific policy on equal pay.

Scottish Executive Staff

Jackie Baillie (Dumbarton) (Lab): To ask the Scottish Executive which department has responsibility for the implementation of its equal pay policy.

Mr Andy Kerr: Equal pay policy in the Scottish Executive is the responsibility of the Directorate of Personnel and Pay within Corporate Services department.

Scottish Executive Staff

Jackie Baillie (Dumbarton) (Lab): To ask the Scottish Executive whether all non-departmental public bodies and executive agencies have carried out a pay systems review to establish whether there is any gender pay gap in line with the Equal Opportunities Commission’s Code of Practice on Equal Pay .

Mr Andy Kerr: In line with the UK Government, all Scottish non-departmental public bodies and executive agencies have been requested to conduct an equal pay review by April 2003.

Scottish Qualifications Authority

Michael Russell (South of Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive in what circumstances the Scottish Qualifications Authority is permitted to use students to mark examination scripts.

Michael Russell (South of Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive how many students have been employed as markers by the Scottish Qualifications Authority in each of the past three years.

Nicol Stephen: This is a matter for the Scottish Qualifications Authority. I will ask the chairman to write with the details requested.

Sex Offenders

Mr Gil Paterson (Central Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive when the steering group to take forward the recommendations in the report of the Expert Panel on Sex Offending,  Reducing the Risk: Improving the Response to Sex Offending , will be set up and who will be part of this group.

Mr Jim Wallace: It is intended that the steering group will meet for the first time in the autumn. It will be chaired by the head of the Criminal Justice Group in the Justice Department and will involve representatives from the Crown Office, local authorities, the police, the health service, the Scottish Prison Service, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, the Scottish Courts Service and the voluntary sector.

Sex Offenders

Mr Gil Paterson (Central Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive what timescale has been set for the production of the material recommended in the report of the Expert Panel on Sex Offending, Reducing the Risk: Improving the Response to Sex Offending .

Mr Jim Wallace: Many of the materials will be produced as part of on-going initiatives and some have been produced already, for instance:

  The Scottish Executive has produced a leaflet that provides parents with information on which to base decisions about child safety in groups. It will be widely circulated to parents and carers in the school year 02-03 (recommendation 8).

  Disclosure Scotland has produced detailed guidance and advice in the form of a Guide to the Code of Practice, and in the Disclosure Scotland Website. Information will be issued in due course on the links between the Index of adults unsuitable to work with children and the Scottish Criminal Records Office (recommendation 11).

  Other materials are still being developed:

  A review of guidance issued to local authorities regarding child protection in schools is about to commence and will result in updated guidance being produced during 2003. Resources currently exist in schools regarding child protection and personal safety, however, following the updated guidance, the Scottish Executive will consider whether there are any significant gaps in provision which need to be addressed (recommendation 2).

  The Association of Directors of Social Work and the Scottish Institute for Residential Childcare will jointly develop supporting materials on safe and healthy relationships and assertiveness skills for children and young people looked after by local authorities, those with special educational needs or in special schools, and those identified as living with or affected by domestic violence. They will also provide information and about sexual health for vulnerable young people in care. This will be done by autumn 2003 (recommendations 4-6).

  The Risk Management Authority, which will be established by the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, will be responsible for issuing guidance about assessing and minimising risk (recommendation 19).

  "Information for Sentencers" will be developed to provide information on the available provision of community based programmes, including those for sex offenders. It will be piloted in Edinburgh and the Lothians in autumn 2002. This could also be made available to the Parole Board (recommendation 25).

  The Justice Department steering group, announced along with the response to the expert panel, will produce protocols to provide a framework for information sharing and joint working (recommendation 64).

  The Judicial Studies Committee will decide on the timing and content of advice to the Judiciary to increase understanding of the nature and special features of sex offending and its prosecution. The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service will develop their training to include this information (recommendation 71). The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service already provide good practice guidance to prosecutors, as this is the responsibility of the Lord Advocate (recommendation 73).

Sex Offenders

Mr Gil Paterson (Central Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive what resources will be provided to ensure that the recommendations made in the report of the Expert Panel on Sex Offending, Reducing the Risk: Improving the Response to Sex Offending , are implemented.

Mr Jim Wallace: The main thrust of the recommendations is to build on existing best practice. Many of them can be taken forward as part of the existing or planned initiatives of the key agencies which are involved. There are no major changes envisaged, rather a series of smaller changes which together can have a significant impact on practice.

  The following costs have been identified for taking forward the recommendations that are included in the Criminal Justice Bill:

  There will be minor annual costs from additional requirements for social enquiry reports and psychological assessments of £50,000. The Scottish Executive will meet these costs. There will also be an annual cost of £270,000 for transcribing the Crown’s narrative of the facts following a guilty plea, and an additional one off cost of £50,000 for the installation of recording equipment. These costs will be met from the Scottish Court Service budget. There will also be additional costs in judicial time for the preparation of notes by trial judges, which can be met from planned resources.

Sex Offenders

Mr Gil Paterson (Central Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive when the Sexual Offender Strategy and Implementation Group will report.

Mr Jim Wallace: The report of the Review Group on the Future Management of Sex Offenders (the Spencer Report) was received at the end of June 2002. I will wish to take the opportunity to read the fairly substantial report and consider its conclusions. It is my intention to make the report available for wider circulation in due course.

Speech and Language Therapists

Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive how many speech and language therapists currently operate in the former Grampian Region Council area; what therapist/client ratio this number equates to, and whether the current provision of speech and language therapists in the area is adequate.

Mrs Mary Mulligan: The information requested is not held centrally. Speech and language therapists are employed by NHSScotland and it is the responsibility of NHS boards to assess the needs of their population and to determine the staffing levels appropriate to meet this need.

Student Finance

Andrew Wilson (Central Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive how many students who attended college prior to university have incurred default notice debts for loans provided during their college study as a result of the Student Loans Company computer systems not being able to rationalise and merge personal data.

Iain Gray: The Student Loans Company advises that this information could only be obtained by examining each student loan account which has been subject to a default notice. Such an exercise could only be undertaken at disproportionate cost.

  Of the approximately 2.7 million loan accounts held by the Student Loans Company, only 5,700 (0.2%) are currently administered individually because of difficulties in matching or merging personal data. The accounts of students who progress from higher education courses at college to higher level courses at university are merged successfully in almost all cases.